Then Just who is Calzaghe greater than?

Hopkins fighting was a cure for insomnia. As dull as dishwater but hey it`s all opinion.

 

Joe was involved in many a stinker himself. Just because Hopkins didn't throw hundreds of arm punches every fight doesn't make him boring to me.

 

I honestly think against a prime Jones,Roy would have finished what he started in the 1st round and it would have been a short embarassing night for Joe.A younger Hopkins would also have beaten him although most likley on points.I was at the fight with Eubank when Joe took the title,it was supposed to be Steve Collins in with Joe and Eubank stepped in at short notice.It was a good fight but you cant read too much into the win because Eubank was a stand in and already way past his best.By the time Joe took the title all the best of the Brit/irish super middles had either retired or were past it,joe had to fight little known European fighters for a long time,he did not do himself many favours and was invoved in some boring fights,i was also at ringside for the Starrie fight which was awful.He seemed to struggle when the opposistion went up a level and his fight with Brewer is an example of this,a good win but he made it hard work.Only towards the end of his career did he take risks with big name fighters.The only time he was really impressive was against Lacy.With Kessler i think most of the excitment was brought by the Dane,and Calzaghe won by slapping.His fight with Hopkins should have been his first loss and Jones was past it.
Joe is a good fighter who ranks higher than Woodhall,Wharton,Reid and probably Collins but he is not anywhere near as good as Benn and Eubank.

 

I could see the ruthless Eubank of the early 90's KOing Calzaghe but you would probably have to make JC the favourite to win on points by being more busy like he usually does.

 

Thats just like the worst ever reply.

He fought Kessler and Lacy when they were meant to be the next big thing and Joe was on the slide.

Having said that it was Warrens fault for either A. not believing in Joe or B. Warrens fault for not capitalising on Joes talent by making matches in the US.

 

Difference is. JC always tried to entertain Hopkins didn`t.

 

I disagree with what you said about Kessler. I thought from round 6 onwards JC made kessler look stupid and limited. This was the fight I realised that Kessler has no ability to fight on the back foot / decent counter skills. When Kessler is not controling the fight pressureing his opponent he looks robotic.

 

Debatable. Did you not find the Trinidad and Pavlik fights entertaining? How about the Echols fights? They were two fantastic scraps.

 

But if that is the case then isn't this is an even more sad reflection on Calzaghe's career as his prime years were spent fighting mostly substandard opponents in match ups that in the grand scheme of things no one really cared about.

 

That would be the 'town' of Europe, presumably?

 

BHOP was never entertaining to watch unless he was fighting someone with an exciting style. That's why BHOP uses his big mouth to generate interest in the fight.

 

LOL. Most of his fights were in Britain though. He had one in Copenhagen on the Tyson Neilson undercard. Where else in Europe did he fight? I'm not on a wind up, I just can't remember.

 

I do agree with what you say some what.

With Jones i believe Calzaghe wasnt marketable enough for the fight at the time. That has to be down to Warren and Calzaghe.

With Hopkins Warren offered him his highest ever purse only for Hopkins to turn around at the last minute and say no. This i believe would be because of Hopkins.

But, i think Calzaghe fought alot of bumsin his reign but he also fought the occasional good opponent. His resume isnt stellar but it isnt as **** as alot of people make out.

 

Why do Calzaghe fans always attack Hopkins? Seems bizarre.

 

Him against Glen Johnson was very entertaining. What an ass-whooping.